Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika–
Зарубежная лингвистика и
лингводидактика– Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
The paradigmatics of object syntaxemes in the systems of
English and Uzbek languages
Dilorom JURAEVA
1
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received March 2025
Received in revised form
10
April 2025
Accepted 2 April 2025
Available online
25 May 2025
This article provides a comparative analysis of the
paradigmatic characteristics of object syntaxemes in the
systems of English and Uzbek languages. During the study, the
structural and semantic variants of objects were identified, and
their paradigmatic relations were classified using syntactic
modeling. It is shown that in English, the role of the object is
determined mainly by strict word order, whereas in Uzbek it is
marked by morphological indicators. The analysis is based on
NP1–P1–NP2 structures and their equivalents, revealing both
shared and unique features of the two language systems. This
approach is significant for language teaching and translation
studies.
2181-3701/© 2025 in Science LLC.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol3-iss5
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
object syntaxeme,
paradigmatic analysis,
comparative syntax,
NP1–P1–NP2 model,
word order,
morphological marker,
sentence structure.
Ingliz va o‘zbek tillari tizimidagi obyekt sintaksemalarning
paradigmatikasi
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar:
obyekt sintaksema,
paradigmatik tahlil,
qiyosiy sintaksis,
NP1–P1–NP2 modeli,
so‘z tartibi,
morfologik ko‘rsatkich,
gap strukturalari.
Mazkur maqolada ingliz va o‘zbek tillari tizimida obyekt
sintaksemalarining paradigmatik xususiyatlari qiyosiy jihatdan
tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqot davomida obyektning strukturaviy va
semantik variantlari aniqlanib, ularning paradigmatik bog‘lanishi
sintaktik modellar asosida tasniflanadi. Ingliz tilidagi
obyektlarning qat’iy so‘z tartibiga asoslanganligi, o‘zbek tilida
esa
morfologik
ko‘rsatkichlar
orqali
ifodalanishi
til
tizimlarining tipologik tafovutini ko‘rsatadi. Maqolada obyekt
sintaksemalarining NP1–P1–NP2 va unga teng strukturalari
misolida modellashtirilgan tahlil o‘tkazilib, har ikki til uchun
umumiy va xos jihatlar ochib beriladi. Ushbu yondashuv chet tilini
o‘rgatish va tarjima nazariyasida ham muhim ahamiyat kasb etadi.
1
Researcher, Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 5 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
159
Парадигматика объектных синтаксем в системах
английского и узбекского языков
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
синтаксема дополнения,
парадигматический
анализ,
сравнительный синтаксис,
модель NP1–P1–NP2,
порядок слов,
морфологический
показатель,
структура предложения.
В данной статье представлен сравнительный анализ
парадигматических характеристик объектных синтаксем
в системах английского и узбекского языков. В ходе
исследования
были
выявлены
структурные
и
семантические
варианты
объектов,
а
также
классифицированы их парадигматические отношения с
использованием
синтаксического
моделирования.
Установлено, что в английском языке функция дополнения
определяется преимущественно строгим порядком слов,
тогда как в узбекском языке – морфологическими
показателями. Анализ основан на структурах NP1–P1–NP2
и их эквивалентах, что позволяет выявить как общие, так и
специфические особенности обоих языков. Такой подход
представляет интерес для методики преподавания
иностранных языков и теории перевода.
INTRODUCTION
In modern global linguistics, the systematic study of controversial issues in
traditional syntax, the comparative-functional syntactic analysis of sentence structure,
and the identification of the ontological nature of such phenomena, as well as their
interlingual relationships, remain at the center of scholarly attention. Additionally, there
is a growing need to determine the differential syntactic-semantic features of linguistic
units that reflect the substantiality of actions or processes in the pragmatic expression of
events, and to thoroughly explore issues of semantic syntax based on the materials of
both related and unrelated languages. The necessity of conducting research grounded in
these linguistic theoretical approaches highlights the relevance of the topic.
In global linguistics, describing the linguistic picture of the world and investigating
it through linguistic methods opens promising directions for scientific inquiry. Moreover,
a comparative analysis of the features of syntactic units expressed within the
paradigmatic framework of object syntaxemes plays a crucial role in determining
typological similarities and specificities in the systems of English and Uzbek languages.
While significant progress has been made in Uzbek linguistics in the comparative-
typological study of language units in English and Uzbek, there remains a need to employ
innovative methods of syntactic analysis – particularly by breaking down sentence
components into individual constituents and syntaxemes – in order to identify the
syntactic relations of meaning-bearing units within the structure of the sentence.
METHODS
The following methods were employed in the research:
Comparative-syntactic analysis
– to compare the structural features of object
syntaxemes in English and Uzbek;
Formal-schematic modeling
– to schematically represent the position and role
of objects in a sentence using the NP1–P1–NP2 formula;
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 5 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
160
Descriptive method
– to identify the status of linguistic units and describe their
paradigmatic relationships.
For analysis, a corpus of 50 sample sentences was selected from each language
system. The sentences were grouped based on the presence of an object and classified
according to structural schemes.
RESULTS
1. Object Syntaxemes in the English Language
Object syntaxemes in English are word combinations or sentence units that are
required by the verb (predicate) and denote the entity toward which the action is
directed. These are primarily manifested in the forms of
direct objects, indirect objects
,
and
object clauses
. The object typically follows the verb and is arranged according to the
formula
NP1 – P1 – NP2,
for example:
She reads a book.
In this sentence,
a book
is the object. In English, the syntactic function of the object
is expressed mainly through
word order,
while
morphological markers
are rarely
used.
a)
Direct Object
Formula
: NP1 – P1 – NP2
Example
Structure
Analyses
She reads a book.
NP1 =
She
, P1 =
reads
, NP2 =
a
book
Obyekt fe’ldan keyin darhol
keladi
NP1 P1 NP2
She reads a book
In the sentence
“She reads a book”
,
“She”
is the
subject (NP1)
, i.e., the person
performing the action.
“reads”
is the
verb (P1)
, representing the action being
performed.
“a book”
is the
direct object (NP2)
, i.e., the item being read. This object
follows the verb and answers the question
“what?”
. The sentence is constructed based on
the
NP1 – P1 – NP2
formula, representing a basic structure of object syntaxemes [13].
b) Bilvosita obyekt + Bevosita obyekt –
Indirect + Direct Object
Formula
: NP1 – P1 – NP2 – NP3
Example
Analyses
He gave her a letter.
NP1 =
He
, P1 =
gave
, NP2 =
her
(indirect), NP3 =
a letter
(direct)
NP1 P1 NP2 NP3
He gave her a letter
In the sentence
“He gave her a letter”
,
“He”
is the
subject (NP1)
, i.e., the person
performing the action.
“gave”
is the
verb (P1)
, representing the action itself.
“her”
is the
indirect object (NP2)
, indicating the person to whom the action is directed.
“a letter”
is
the
direct object (NP3)
, i.e., the item that is given. This sentence includes two objects:
one answers the question
“to whom?”
(
her
), and the other
“what?”
(
a letter
). The
structure follows the
NP1 – P1 – NP2 – NP3
formula, representing a complex form of
object syntaxemes [7].
b)
Clause as Object
Formula
: NP1 – P1 – Clause
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 5 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
161
Example
Analyses
I know that he is lying.
“that he is lying” – functions as an object in the form of a
complete clause.
NP1 P1 Clause
I know that he is lying
In the sentence “I know that he is lying,”
“I”
is the subject (NP1), the person
performing the act of knowing.
“know”
is the verb (P1), functioning as a predicate
expressing cognition.
“that he is lying”
is a subordinate clause serving as the object
(Clause), answering the questions
“what kind of knowledge?”
or
“what does he know?”
This object is not a simple noun phrase but a full clause, which belongs to the complex
type of object syntaxemes. Its structure is based on the
NP1 – P1 – Clause
formula and
reflects the broader paradigm of object syntax in English.
2. Object Syntaxemes in Uzbek
Object syntaxemes in the Uzbek language are sentence elements that express the
entity or person affected by the action expressed through a verb – that is, the object
toward which the action is directed. Objects are divided into
direct
and
indirect
objects
[8]. A
direct object
usually takes the suffix
-ni
(e.g.,
kitobni o‘qidi
– “(he/she) read the
book”), while an
indirect object
is expressed with suffixes such as
-ga
,
-dan
,
-bilan
, etc.
(e.g.,
do‘stiga xat yozdi
– “(he/she) wrote a letter to a friend”).
In Uzbek, the syntactic role of the object is
mainly determined by morphological
markers
, while
word order is relatively flexible
. Object syntaxemes may appear as
noun phrases, pronouns, numerals, or subordinate clauses
. The object may come
before or after the verb
in a sentence, depending on context and emphasis.
a)
Direct Object (without additional elements)
Formula: NP1 – NP2 – P1
Example
Analyses
U kitob o‘qiydi.
NP1 =
U
, NP2 =
kitob
, P1 =
o‘qiydi
. In this sentence, the object
kitob
is used without a case marker (in a neutral form).
NP1 NP2 P1
U kitob o‘qiydi
In the sentence
"U kitob o‘qiydi"
(“He/She reads a book”):
“U”
is the subject (NP1), the person performing the action.
“kitob”
is the object (NP2), the thing towards which the action is directed
(a direct object).
“o‘qiydi”
is the predicate (P1), the verb expressing the action being performed.
This sentence is structured according to the NP1 – NP2 – P1 formula and
represents a simple form of object syntaxeme in Uzbek.
Kitob
functions as a direct object
and is used
without the -ni marker
, indicating that the level of definiteness is low
(general information). In Uzbek, the object can precede the verb, and here it denotes the
entity toward which the action is directed. This structure reflects the
relatively free
word order
in Uzbek and the
importance of morphological markers
in identifying
syntactic roles.
b) Definite object (with the suffix
-ni
)
📌
Formula
: NP1 – NP2(-ni) – P1
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 5 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
162
Example
Analyses
U kitobni o‘qiyapti.
NP2 = kitobni
, this object is definite and is expressed
by the accusative suffix
“-ni”
.
NP1 NP2(ni) P1
U kitobni o‘qiyapti
In the sentence
"U kitobni o‘qiyapti"
(He/She is reading the book), the following
syntactic structure is observed:
“U”
– subject (NP1), i.e., the person performing the action.
“kitobni”
– direct object (NP2), a noun with the accusative marker
-ni
, indicating
the item directly affected by the action.
“o‘qiyapti”
– predicate (P1), a verb expressing an ongoing action in the present
tense [17].
This sentence corresponds to the
NP1 – NP2(ni) – P1
formula and illustrates the
full morphological expression of the direct object syntaxeme in Uzbek. The
-ni
suffix in
“kitobni” indicates that the object is definite and known. In Uzbek, the presence of the
-ni
marker distinguishes the object as being directly affected by the verb. The structure of
the sentence clearly demonstrates the morphological marking and syntactic function of
the object.
3. Paradigmatic series and variants
Objects in the language system can be expressed in various ways.
Language
Syntactic Units
Paradigmatic Variants
English
NP2, NP2 + NP3, Clause
I read a book
,
He gave me a pen
,
I know that...
Uzbek
NP2 (without suffix), NP2 (-ni),
Clause
U maktabga bordi
(He went to
school),
U xatni o‘qidi
(He read
the letter),
Men u aytganini
eshitdim
(I heard what he said)
These variants generate various formalized object structures at the paradigmatic
level of the language.
Our analysis reveals that, in English, the object strictly follows the verb, and
morphological markers are limited. In Uzbek, however, word order is relatively free, but
affixes – especially
-ni
– serve to clearly indicate the object. Through paradigmatic
analysis, the diversity, alternatives, and formal characteristics of the language system
become evident.
DISCUSSION
Turning to the history of comparative-typological linguistic studies, we observe
that significant progress has been made in the comparative analysis of English – Uzbek,
English–Karakalpak, German – Uzbek, English – Uzbek – Russian, and German – Uzbek –
Russian language pairs in Uzbekistan. The foundation of this tradition is attributed to
Mahmud al-Kashgari. Prominent linguists such as E.D. Polivanov, A.A. Abduazizov,
J. Buronov, U.Q. Yusupov, M.A. Abdurazzoqov, M.J. Jusupov, and M. Rasulova have made
substantial contributions to the development of this field. Notably, J. Buronov developed
the theoretical foundations of comparative linguistics, while U.Q. Yusupov [15]
established its principles based on specific languages, identifying eighteen parameters
for conducting comparative analysis.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 5 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
163
Based on the above, it can be concluded that the comparative study of structurally
different languages not only addresses theoretical linguistic questions but also fulfills
practical and methodological purposes. Such research fosters a close link between theory
and practice, particularly in the process of foreign language acquisition, where
identifying similarities and differences between the native and target language enables
deeper understanding. This comparative approach plays a significant role in language
development, mutual enrichment of the compared languages, and in the comprehensive
exploration of linguistic relationships – whether genealogical or typological.
This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the paradigmatic features of
object syntagmas in English and Uzbek, with a focus on identifying their morphosyntactic
properties. The results indicate that in English, the syntactic function of the object is
mainly expressed through fixed word order, while in Uzbek, it is primarily conveyed by
morphological markers, especially suffixes such as
-ni
,
-ga
, and
-dan
. This gives rise to a
greater degree of syntactic flexibility in Uzbek.
In English, fixed structures such as
NP1–V–NP2
or
NP1–V–NP2–NP3
determine the
position of the object. In contrast, in Uzbek, the structures can vary as
NP1–NP2–V
or
V–NP2–NP1 [16],
reflecting a more flexible syntactic arrangement.
Our discussion further revealed that both languages have direct and indirect
objects, whose paradigmatic realizations are semantically similar but formally distinct. In
English, embedded object clauses are typically expressed through
that-clauses
, whereas
in Uzbek, subordinate clauses used as objects are more diverse and structurally varied.
These differences are of great significance for translation, language teaching, and
automated syntactic analysis.
CONCLUSION
This article has provided a comparative analysis of the paradigmatic
characteristics of object syntagmas in English and Uzbek. The findings demonstrate that
while English relies primarily on strict word order to mark objects, Uzbek employs
morphological markers. Both languages exhibit direct and indirect objects, as well as
object clauses, yet the syntactic positioning and formal realization of these elements are
governed by distinct paradigms in each language. The syntactic flexibility and rich affixal
system of Uzbek contrast with the rigid structural patterns observed in English. These
insights lead to important theoretical and practical implications for linguistics and can be
effectively applied in translation studies, language instruction, and automated linguistic
analysis.
REFERENCES:
1.
Ashurov Sh.S. Ingliz va o‘zbek tillarida kesim tipologiyasi. Filol.fan. nom. diss. –
Samarqand, 2007. – 154 b.
2.
Baker, M. (1992).
In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation
. London:
Routledge.
3.
Carnie, A. (2013).
Syntax: A Generative Introduction
(3rd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
4.
Chomsky N. Deep structure, surface structure and Semantic interpretation // In
Steinberg and Jakobits. 1971. – P. 183-216.
5.
Chomsky, N. (1995).
The Minimalist Program
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Crystal, D. (2003).
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language
(2nd
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 5 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
164
7.
Hojiev A. Fel. – Toshkent: Fan, 1973. – 192 b.
8.
Hudoyberganov, O. (2007).
Hozirgi o‘zbek adabiy tili sintaksisi
. Toshkent:
O‘zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi.
9.
Karimov, A. (2010).
Qiyosiy tilshunoslik asoslari
. Toshkent: O‘qituvchi.
10.
Miller J. Stative verbs in Russian. Foundation of language, 1970 vol. 6. N4. –
P.488-504.
11.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985).
A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language
. London: Longman.
12.
Radford, A. (2004).
English Syntax: An Introduction
. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
13.
Usmonov O‘.U. Gap tahliliga yangicha yondashuv // Xalqaro ilmiy-nazariy
anjuman (SamDCHTIning 10 yilligiga bag‘shlanadi). – Samarqand, 2004. – B.105-108.
14.
Xaitov, T. (2008).
O‘zbek tilida ergash gaplar tizimi
. Toshkent: Fan.
15.
Yusupov, Sh. (2006).
O‘zbek tilining nazariy grammatikasi: Sintaksis
. Toshkent:
Fan.
16.
Мухин А.М. Синтаксемный анализ и проблема уровней языка. –
Ленинград: Наука, 1980. – 303 с.
17.
Усманов Ф.М. Синтактико-семантическая сопоставления двусоставных
безглагольных предложений (на материале английского и узбекского языков):
Дисс... канд. филол. наук. – Самарканд: 2012. – 149 с.
